Next version of Office for Mac

Jim Gordon MVP wrote:
> Justin wrote:

>>
>> I would hope so; as it is supposed to be the same application, just
>> for a different platform.
>> That's like saying for an American, driving in Canada is easier than
>> driving in the UK; even though Canada uses the Metric system.
>
> That's an excellent analogy!

Indeed it is.
>>
>> Yes, Calibri didn't exist before - Microsoft basically screwed with
>> Arial and made up its own font.
>> Why? What was wrong with Times New Roman? How about Arial?
>> TNR used to be the default font. What changed?
>
> There's a bit of truth to Don's font analysis in this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7S-KOJIfE
>
> Generalizing & paraphrasing: Using one font over and over all the time
> indicates you are boring and apathetic.

Go download Microsoft's financial statements and K-10.
Business is boring.

If you're a sign maker than yes, fonts can become an issue.

>
> If you love new fonts and enjoy variety in life and hope for better
> cross-platform compatibility then you applaud the new fonts. If you are
> a cynic in search of conspiracy you might say Microsoft is doing it to
> lock you into their product because the exclusive font makes Microsoft's
> product less compatible with competing products. The new fonts are nice
> and they are the default so most people use them.

Based on what I'm seeing that's not unreasonable. MS Dumped Arial for
something proprietary.
They are the default because MS basically forced it on them.

> Click on one of the fonts in the list, then use Apple+a to select all of
> them. Then use the Resolve Duplicates command in Font Book. Then click
> the triangles of the fonts to reveal any duplicates that were found.
> Caution: Font Book will enable only one version of each font name in
> this process, but you can right-click or control-click on individual
> fonts to enable, disable, or remove them.

You mean Command+a?
I found a dupe - Calibri.
That must have happened when I was forced to reinstall Office thanks to
the crashing and work loss incident.

>
> Well, there are even different versions of Arial that have come out over
> the years just from Microsoft. In MS Office on the PC, the Arial font in
> 2003 has glyphs that are slightly different from previous versions and
> in Excel some cells won't display the same as with older Arial. I think
> Snow Leopard has an even newer version. The font situation is pretty
> messy at the moment.

The plot thickens.
So Microsoft modified the Arial font. Why? Even you have to admit it
sure looks like MS wanted to sabotage it.
PennDOT wanted to outsource maintenance of the PA Turnpike to a private
company.
How would drivers feel if they decided to make the white lane divider
lines bright purple? I don't think it would affect safety, but there's
no reason for it.

> It's a very handsome font.

That and its cool to say.
>
> There's still no formatting palette, and OO tends to mimic Windows
> Office more than I would like.

Who needs a floating palette? Those things consistently get in the way.
I spend more time dragging them off my view then actually using them.

>> I'll lump those two together.
>
> That's like lumping mashed potatoes together with chives. They're
> completely different things, although they can be good together.
>
>> You're right, there's no Project Management in OoO - but there are
>> plenty of others. Daylight.
>
> Also Omni Group makes project software.
>
>> PG, is a proprietary Microsoft only solution - there's no such thing
>> as a generic project management format.
>
> But OO could come up with an equivalent that leverages Spotlight like PG
> does, but they don't.

They don't because there are already online solutions outside of OOo
that would probably work with MS Office as well.

>> Same deal, it is an OS specific scripting language.
>
> Very true. Microsoft supports it. OO does not.
>
>> Does Windows support perl?
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/webcasts/windows-with-p...-and-ph
>
>
>>> Automator actions.
>>
>> Automator is partof Office - of course its not cross suite.
>
> Automator is not part of Office. It is part of Mac OSX. Microsoft Office
> can use Automator actions. OO can not.
>
>> That's why the Orb didn't make it to Office '08.
>
> What's Orb?

The circle in the upper right of (Windows) Office 2007.
At least that's what I thought they were calling it.
Or is that the Windows Vista Start Menu?

> It isn't so much that you can add special effects to pictures in OO, you
> can. It's that OO does not take advantage of the built-in image effects
> available to it via Mac OS X. Microsoft does take advantage of this on
> the Mac.

How compatible is it?
(I reinstalled MS Office on here just for you - give me an assignment
and I'll find a way to send the file to you)
I'll do it in OOo and Office '08.

>
>> I can then save it as a doc, docx, or ODT - OpenDocument (Office '08
>> doesn't support so I can't test).
>
> ODF support begins with Office 2010 on the PC. No mention has been made
> about specific features for the next version of Mac Office except for
> the announcement about VBA.

I checked on my Vista machine running Office '07 - it can save as OD*
but I forgot to test opening.
I did my first (simulated) corporate tax return last night my mind was mush.

> Much to the chagrin of OO supporters, the new Microsoft XML formats are
> indeed the new ISO standard. ODF is also an XML open format, but was
> judged to be less desirable and open than Microsoft's offering.

I have to disagree with that. If there somewhere I can read about that?
MS only released their XML standards in 2008.
Now if they would release it for FAT64/EXFAT so I can transfer my 30GB+
DV files on a USBjumper...
I edit video too - on both platforms.

>
>> OpenDocument (od*) solves that problem, and probably the font issues
>> discussed earlier as well.
>
> Neither ODF or Microsoft XML cure the font issues. They are independent.
>
>> Yes, OoO doesn't support the Microsoft version of SQL querying.
>> However, you do realize SQL is not Microsoft, right?
>
> You missed my point. There's no SQL graphical user interface in OO, but
> there is in Microsoft Office. Both rely on the same ODBC query
> mechanism, which is independent of both Microsoft and OO and relies on
> 3rd party ODBC drivers.

Are you sure about that?
If the ODBC connection is visible to the machine it can connect.
I can't do a screens hot right now because I'm getting ready for class.

> All true, but OO doesn't have a SQL GUI and Microsoft Office does.
>
>
> Microsoft at one point announced that VBA would be phased out. MacBU
> (the Microsoft Mac business unit) included phase-out plans in Office
> 2008 to follow the planned phase out in Office 2007 for Windows. When
> Windows customers made a large fuss about the discontinuance of VBA,
> Microsoft backed off their phase-out plans for Office 2007. On the Mac
> side, MacBU got hit with a major change in OS version and at the same
> time had to deal with Intel instead of PPC professors, which caused the
> VBA compiler to be useless on Mac Intel machines. MacBU faced a similar
> fuss from their customers, but not in time to get VBA included in Office
> 2008. Personally, I think the decision not to include VBA in Office 2008
> was the most costly, dumb decision MacBU has ever made.

But VBA on OSX shouldn't be necessary.
How about an interpreter rather than an executor on the OSX side?

>
>> And Visual Basic is a Microsoft programming language - NOT a standard.
>
> That is correct!
>
>> If Microsoft wanted to they would release something for OSX and 'nix
>> that allows for VB support. Similar to the various perl
>> implementations available for Windows.
>
> Microsoft decided to support Apple's programmability offerings in order
> to be as Mac-like as possible. VBA support is important for
> cross-platform compatibility with office for Windows. VBA and
> AppleScript can pass variables back and forth and can call each other's
> routines. Microsoft made VBA work with Apple technologies, and vice-versa.
>

That must have made for some interesting meetings.
Was security on hand to break up fights?


> You'd have to ask Apple. It's their product. If Apple chose to do so,
> they could make Applescript work on Windows.

That's right. and MS could make VBA work on OSX - but they seem slow
and fraught with bugs.


> I know of only one or two VBA Macro viruses. The problem is that VBA is
> sort of old and only allows 64,000 or so characters in a module. You can
> have lots of modules, so to get around the character size limit you can
> call routines in succession. Also, it's a good programming practice to
> modularize, which makes calling various subroutines from executive
> routines a good idea. The larger issue is compatibility. By leaving out
> key functionality, OO VBA does not work in most cases, making OO not
> compatible with Microsoft Office to a significant degree.

Great so they're implementating an obsolete language on a new platform.


> ODF did not become the ISO standard.
> ISO (International Standards Organizations) rejected ODF in favor of
> Microsoft's XML .docx .xlsx and .pptx

Then why does it have a number?
ISO/IEC 26300:2006 Open Document Format for Office Applications
There is no "the" standard.
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43485

I don't see anything there saying its no longer in favor.


I have to stop here - class.

Howard Brazee wrote:

> But it doesn't work for me. The reason I have Office for the Mac is
> so that I can edit the same documents on my Mac that I edit on
> Windows. I want to go back and forth, which means, no translations,
> just open them and edit them. If I can't do that - it's not easy
> enough. (For spreadsheets, that means VB macros).

Yup. MacBU learned that lesson the hard way, and the fact that it comes
up daily means that MacBU is paying for their bad call with lost
goodwill and sales. The return of VBA is a big deal for MacBU and for
many Mac Office users. "Holiday 2010" is the expected delivery date.

> What difference does it make which interface came first? Users get
> used to one or the other.

At one time there was an effort to make the interface of Office
identical (Office 4.2.1) on Mac and PC. Mac users hated it. They
revolted and sales were hurt as a result.

> While Windows is not quite caught up to OS in ease of its interface,
> it does have a couple of things that I think work better - possibly
> because it was designed later.
> Better:
> 1. In Windows, I can click on a new window and paste immediately.
> On a Mac I have to click on a new window, wait for the focus to
> arrive, and then paste.
> Arguably better:
> 2. In the Mac, the application's menu is at the top of the screen -
> a design that seems to be made for single-tasking. Only one menu is
> visible. This saves on real-estate. And it also fits the idea
> that in Macs, apps often have multiple pop-up windows. But this
> design may be the cause of #1 above.

Apple's user interface guidelines call for real menus. As you point out,
these are characteristics of the operating system that Mac Office goes
along with.

>>> People like using older versions of Office for a reason - they get used
>>> to it and don't want it to go away.
>>> Alot of people don't like the Orb interface.
>> What is the Orb interface? Do you mean the ribbon in Office 2007?
>
> I bet he does. I know that I spend lots more time looking for simple
> menu items than I used to before the interface was upgraded. I think
> I have Office 2007. I'm on my Windows machine right now, and I just
> spent some time trying to find the "about" option to verify my
> version. This fits the argument above - we get used to some
> interface and we don't like to re-learn it. The new interface is a
> huge time-waster to someone who already knew how to do stuff the old
> way.

I have to use the ribbon a lot in my work. Although it's been around
several years, I still can't get used to it. I still try to insert a new
slide instead of the new ribbon way of "homing" a new slide.

-Jim
--
Jim Gordon
Mac MVP
Co-author of Office 2008 for Mac All-in-One For Dummies
http://tinyurl.com/Office-2008-for-Dummies